NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fred thompson. Show all posts

04 April 2013

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson says Obamcare could raise premiums enough to pay for a new Ford Explorer 27MAR13

Maybe fred thompson has Alzheimer's, or maybe he is just a tea-baggin' liar, or it may be both. Whatever it is, he is deceiving people and causing unnecessary fear and anxiety with his comments concerning Obamacare and insurance premiums. From PolitiFact.....

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Thompson

Says that under President Barack Obama’s health care law, "your insurance" premiums could go up by 200 percent and cost "as much as a new Explorer."

Fred Thompson on Wednesday, March 27th, 2013 in a tweet

Ex-Sen. Fred Thompson says Obamcare could raise premiums enough to pay for a new Ford Explorer

As District Attorney Arthur Branch on Law & Order, former Sen. Fred Thompson was always ready with a wisecrack. In a recentTwitter post, the Tennessee Republican offered a pointed barb about President Barack Obama’s health care law:
"Report: Obamacare could raise ins premiums by 200%. It's the ‘A-Ford-able Care Act’ -- your insurance costs as much as a new Explorer."
As we looked into whether Thompson’s comparison was accurate, we found a trail of facts twisted into a misleading narrative. Here’s how the tale was constructed, piece by piece.
Why premiums will go up
First, we should make clear that independent, credible experts do expect health insurance premiums to increase for many people once the mandates in the health care law take full effect, many of them in 2014.
As we have written previously, the health care law is so complex that it's difficult to predict its ultimate impact on premiums. Some parts of the law should reduce premiums (subsidies for lower-income Americans and rebates from insurers that charge too much for overhead) while other parts should increase premiums (a longer list of mandatory benefits). The overall impact will likely vary depending on your income and what type of insurance you buy.
Take special note of the "type of insurance" -- it proves to be crucial in analyzing Thompson’s claim.
There are three types of private-market insurance. Large-group plans supply coverage through an employer with more than 50 employees. Small group plans work the same way, but with the company employing fewer than 50 people. (For both types of group plans, the employees typically pay a portion of their health care premiums, and the employer pays the rest.) The third type of private insurance is in the nongroup market -- policies that people buy on their own, paying the entire cost themselves. Large group plans account for roughly 70 percent of private policies, with small-group plans accounting for about 13 percent and the nongroup market accounting for about 17 percent.
The health care law is expected to affect each of these three types of policies differently. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projected that by 2016, insurance premiums in the large-group market would either stay the same or drop by up to 3 percent, while the small-group market would see anywhere from a drop of 2 percent to an increase of 1 percent. The biggest rises would be felt in the nongroup market, where premiums were projected to rise by between 10 percent and 13 percent.
There’s a logic to this pattern: Currently, nongroup policies typically offer high-deductible coverage with low premiums. But under Obama’s law, all plans must provide a fixed list of benefits such as preventive care, and adding these services will come with a pricetag. So it’s reasonable for Thompson to point out that for this portion of the private-insurance market -- accounting for about one in every six private policies, many of them issued for younger and relatively healthy Americans -- will take a financial hit from the law.
The congressional Republicans’ report
We failed in our efforts to reach Thompson, but the first clue to figuring out his math is to look at the first part of his tweet: "Report: Obamacare could raise ins premiums by 200%."
We read the report, which was released in March 2013 by the Republican staffs of three congressional committees. This report is hardly a neutral document, given that it was written by staffers of a party that has worked to repeal the health care law since it was passed in 2010. Still, Thompson’s tweet goes much further than the report does, and it ignores some important qualifiers.
The Republican staff report says that "some estimates show some Americans facing startling premium increases of 203 percent because of the law."
Let’s parse this statement. First, "some estimates" refers to a January 2013 study done by former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush and as a top policy adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. His survey asked a range of companies to share premium quotes for individuals with specific demographic characteristics in five cities, before and after the health care law took effect.
In Holtz-Eakin’s study, the numbers around 200 percent refer to "young adults in the individual market" for certain cities. For instance, in Chicago, a young adult in the individual market before Obamacare would pay a premium of $756, rising to $2,268 after the law -- an increase of 202 percent. In Milwaukee, a pre-Obamacare premium of $696 would rise to $2,100, a jump of 203 percent. In three other cities listed, the increases ranged from 179 percent to 183 percent.
Looking at these figures in isolation amounts to cherry-picking. To its credit, the Republican staff report made an effort to put this number into context by listing smaller projected increases as well. For instance, when the report lists projected increases in the 50 states for all people with individual insurance -- not just "young adults" -- these premium increases range from 30 percent to 100 percent. And the Republican report cites two studies that support figures on the low end of that spectrum: The Republican report cites a study by actuarial firm Oliver Wyman that suggests increases of 40 percent in the nongroup market, while the Society of Actuaries suggests a rise of 32 percent.
These are still large increases, but they are nowhere near the eye-popping 200 percent figure that landed in headlines on conservative news sites and blogs.
And there’s an additional level of cherry picking going on as well. The Republican report looks only at the nongroup market, which, as we noted, accounts for just 17 percent of the private-insurance market. The report says nothing about the large-group and small-group markets.
This is not to say there won’t be financial hardship among young, healthy people with health insurance; there will be, and probably among other groups of Americans as well. But Thompson ignored the nuances when he tweeted that "your insurance" could rise by 200 percent. That kind of increase would only affect a vanishingly small proportion of Americans (or Thompson’s 139,000 Twitter followers).
The cost of a Ford Explorer
Some may suggest that Thompson was being facetious with his comparison, but we concluded that it's a checkable claim. And this is the part of the tweet where Thompson really goes off the rails.
According to NADAguides.com, an online auto pricing service, the manufacturer’s suggested retail price for a four-wheel drive, four-door 2013 Ford Explorer ranges from $31,995 (for the basic model) to $41,675 (for the "sport" trim). For simplicity, we’ll choose the basic model. Is there any way that health premiums will zoom past $30,000 a year as a result of Obamacare?
We can’t find any.
The people in Chicago who could be seeing a 200 percent increase in their health insurances are currently paying annual premiums of $756. After the law hits, according to Holtz-Eakin, their premiums would go up to $2,268 -- an amount well short of the $30,000 pricetag for a new Explorer.
Perhaps Thompson looked at a different chart in the Republican report. This chart, titled "Obamacare Impact on Young Adults in the Small Group Market," shows that in Milwaukee, the costs for health insurance premiums in the small-group market would rise from $28,488 before the law to $78,744 after the law. The latter amount would be enough to buy two nicely pimped up Explorers -- but it refers to the cost of premiums for a business that employs 20 people. (The Republican report’s table doesn’t explain that, but we confirmed it with Holtz-Eakin.)
Our ruling
Thompson’s tweet takes a few snippets and spins them into a misleading tale.
By some estimates, premiums for certain Americans could go up by 200 percent -- but only for a very specific type of person, namely young, healthy people who have already bought insurance on the nongroup market and will continue to do so. Meanwhile, the people who could see that big an increase would end up paying $2,200 in premiums after the law, far less than the $30,000 an actual new Explorer costs.
Thompson’s tweet illustrates what can happen when eye-catching statistics are cherry-picked and repeated without the proper context. We rate the claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013 at 12:15 p.m.
Subjects: Health Care
Sources:
Fred Thompson, tweet, March 27, 2013

House Energy and Commerce Committee majority staff, Senate Committee Finance minority staff and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions minority staff, "The Price of Obamacare’s Broken Promises," March 2013




Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust, "Employer Health Benefits: 2012 Summary of Findings," accessed April 2, 2013

NADAguides.com, "New 2013 Ford Explorer Prices," accessed April 2, 2013

Email interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, April 2, 2013

Email interview with Debbee Hancock, press secretary with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 2, 2013
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan

08 July 2010

Law & Order: Mortgage Victims Unit (Starring Fred Thompson) 6JUL10 from MOTHER JONES

We all have a responsibility to make sure the elderly and infirm we know do not fall prey to companies like AAG American Advisors Group.

— Greg Nash/WDCPIX.COM. Slider image via
For six years, former presidential hopeful Fred Thompson played Arthur Branch, the gruff, straight-shooting district attorney in the television series Law and Order. Thompson's character had an unflinching commitment to the letter of the law. The same can't be said for a firm that Thompson has been pitching for lately in TV ads: a mortgage company that's landed in hot water in a half-dozen states for allegedly preying on elderly Americans and, in some cases, violating state law.
This spring, Thompson, a jowly ex-GOP senator from Tennessee, signed on to serve as the national spokesman for American Advisors Group (AAG). In an ad for the company, Thompson stands in front of a charming white house with an American flag flying out front and sings the praises of a lesser-known mortgage product called a reverse mortgage: "Join hundreds of thousands of other Americans who have used a reverse mortgage as a safe, effective financial tool," he implores viewers.
Thompson's new employer, however, has a troubled track record. Regulators in Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Washington State have cracked down on the firm for deceptive marketing and consumer fraud. In February, for instance, the Illinois attorney general, Lisa Madigan, sued AAG and its president for direct-mail solicitations that Madigan described as "extremely misleading." That same month, the state of Massachusetts temporarily banned the company from doing business in the state.
A questionable company enlisting a popular public figure like Thompson to peddle its wares is nothing new. As Mother Jones recently reported, a company called Goldline International uses TV and radio host Glenn Beck to lure unwitting customers into dubious gold-buying deals. (AAG has also advertised on Beck's Fox TV show.) Last month, JD Hayworth, a former Republican congressman who's angling for Arizona senator John McCain's seat, suffered a major embarrassment when an old infomercial resurfaced showing the conservative plugging $1,000 seminars on how to tap "free" government money.
In AAG's case, putting a celebrity face on its mortgage products is at the core of the company’s marketing strategy. Before hiring Thompson, the company used the late veteran actor Peter Graves as its spokesman. And in August 2009, AAG president and CEO Reza Jahangiri explained that a large part of the company's national marketing campaign would revolve around a "celebrity spokesperson" who "adds that credibility and gets borrowers a little more comfortable with the company."
Reverse Mortgages: The New Subprime?
In AAG's line of work, you need all the credibility you can get. The company peddles reverse mortgages, a variety of loan available to homeowners 62 or older, letting them tap the equity in their houses. Here's how they work: In a typical mortgage, the lender advances the loan's principal amount up front to finance the borrower's purchase of a home, and then the borrower repays the lender in monthly installments. In a reverse mortgage, a lender like AAG pays a homeowner—either in monthly payments, a lump sum, or a line of credit—the amount of equity in the home. Then, as fees and interest accumulate over time on the loan, the borrower's balance increases. That sum must be paid off when the borrower moves out, sells the home, or dies, at which point whoever inherits the house must pay off the loan.
More than 90 percent of reverse mortgages are federally insured. Conceived in the early 1980s, they were envisioned as a way for the elderly to pull money out of their homes to pay for medical costs or supplement diminished incomes. In recent years, as the aging boomer generation swells the ranks of elderly Americans, the market for reverse mortgages has skyrocketed. The total principal committed in federally backed reverse mortgages increased seventeen-fold between 2001 and 2008, from $1 billion to $17 billion. Heavyweight banks like Wells Fargo and Bank of America, as well as lesser-known lenders like Financial Freedom, are all major players in the industry. And, like subprime mortgages, reverse mortgages have been securitized and traded, a practice that began for this lesser known industry in 1999.
Source: National Consumer 
Law Center, Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentSource: National Consumer Law Center, Department of Housing and Urban DevelopmentAs the reverse mortgage industry grows, so, too, do the cases of fraud and predatory practices. In fact, the reverse mortgage industry today looks a lot like the subprime mortgage industry five or six years ago. According to a report by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), senior citizens are often pushed into reverse mortgages they don't want or need by overzealous brokers, some of whom worked as subprime mortgage brokers before that market imploded. The Senate Special Committee on Aging has held two hearings, in December 2007 and June 2009, on the risks of reverse mortgages. At a June 2009 banking conference, John Dugan, the Comptroller of the Currency, warned (PDF), "While reverse mortgages can provide real benefits, they also have some of the same characteristics as the riskiest types of subprime mortgages—and that should set off alarm bells."
Lenders target seniors by advertising on TV, via the Internet, and through direct mail; in some cases, they disingenuously describe reverse mortgages as "free money," and ply seniors with images of shopping sprees and dream vacations. In AAG's case, the company's marketing materials are at the heart of its run-ins with state regulators.
In September 2008, regulators with Massachusetts' Division of Banks ordered AAG to stop sending "false or misleading" direct mailers to consumers, which strongly resembled official government mailings. The company agreed. Seven months later, though, state regulators again caught AAG using misleading mailers that suggested the company's reverse mortgages were related to the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan—which wasn't true. Massachusetts regulators also said that the fine print on AAG's offer was printed in a smaller font and a lighter color so that it was especially hard to read. In February 2010, the state banished AAG from doing business in Massachusetts for nearly two years.
AAG has had similar run-ins with regulators in Washington, Illinois, Virginia, Florida, and Maryland. Washington regulators found that AAG sent the deceptive mailers to approximately 72,000 state residents, violating state law. In Virginia, AAG settled with the state and paid a $7,500 as a result of its deceptive marketing materials, though the company admitted no wrongdoing. And in Wisconsin, the state's banking division cited AAG for failing to fully disclose its conflicts with Massachusetts and Washington regulators while applying for a mortgage banking license, for which the company paid Wisconsin $2,000.
AAG says its deceptive mailers were the work of a third-party marketing company and not the company directly. Since running into trouble with state regulators, the company "realized the need to be in control of our marketing and the need to be very conservative in our approach," CEO Jahangiri told ReverseMortgageDaily.com. The company has also pursued settlements and other compromises with state regulators in response to issues arising from its mailers, state regulatory records show. Jahangiri didn't respond to questions submitted in writing by Mother Jones for this story.
Fred's Spotty Spokesman Record
AAG announced Thompson's new role as pitchman this spring, amidst the crackdown by state regulators. (Thompson, through the public speaking agency that represents him, did not respond to a request for comment.) Now, his face is plastered all over AAG's website and marketing materials. His signature even adorns the company's front page. "Find out how much cash you may qualify for," Thompson says in his AAG ad. "Call AAG today."
This isn't the first time Thompson has lent his name to a questionable company. He is among conservative luminaries like Glenn Beck, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, and former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee who've worked as paid spokespeople for Goldline, the gold company that's been accused of scamming its customers.
In 2007, Thompson, then mulling his presidential run, appeared in radio ads for a fraud prevention company named LifeLock. That company's owner, the Los Angeles Times reported, had previously been accused by the Federal Trade Commission of deceptive advertising and stealing money from customers' bank accounts. (The owner, Robert Maynard Jr., settled both accusations without admitting wrongdoing, but was banned by the FTC from selling "credit-improvement services.") A Thompson spokesman said at the time that Thompson hadn't researched the company beforehand, and that the voice-over was part of Thompson's contract as an ABC Radio commentator. "You can't expect the individual on-air personality to do research on every company," the spokesman, Mark Corallo, said.
*****
Read the State of Illinois Attorney General’s complaint against AAG: